Warranties on gray market sales

[Swan1172]

There has been a lot of discussion happening on ScubaBoard lately relating to warranties on scuba equipment. Specifically, the discussions have centered around the ability of scuba equipment manufacturers to void warranties on items purchased through non-authorized (i.e. gray market) retailer. This is interesting to me, so I spent a little time over the weekend trying to get a better understanding of the situation.

From what I can see, warranties made by scuba equipment manufacturers fall under The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which is the federal law that governs consumer product warranties. The Act was passed by Congress in 1975, and requires manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage. In addition, it affects both the rights of consumers and the obligations of warrantors under written warranties.

In terms of scuba manufacturers, where I see them having a problem is with the "Tie-In Sales" provisions of the Act. Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. In other words, a scuba manufacturer cannot legally dictate who sells the product, nor who provides the service in order for the warranty to remain in effect.

What does everyone else think? Do anyone know if this has ever been challenged?

 

[GA Under Water]

I am guessing that most diver's have spent their hard earned money on that regulator and can't afford the $250/hour lawyer to challenge such things.

 

[PalatkaBoy]

Swan,

That provision means that a dealer cannot require you to buy a branded first stage to get a warranty on your branded second stage you just bought. Furthermore from ftc.gov:

"Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service. If you believe that this is the case, you should contact the warranty staff of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection for information on how to apply for a waiver of the tie-in sales prohibition."

So, that could be why they require authorized service dealers to maintain warranty.

Hope this helps.

 

[Swan1172]

I am not as concerned about the service part as I am with their sales practices. I don't think they legally can say that their warranty is only valid if you buy from one of their authorized retailers. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is pretty specific about saying that if a warranty is offered, then it has to be honored regardless of who sells the product.

 

[cerich]

If you look in the scuba biz what are given is LIMITED Warranties, not just a warranty. When someone uses a limited warranty it means there are limits and they can change it any time.

 

[Swan1172]

Regardless of whether the warranties are "full" or "limited", they still fall under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Act does not require manufacturers to provide a warranty, but says that if they do offer one, they must follow the provisions of the law. The provision that the scuba manufacturers seem to be breaking is the "tie-in" sales provision which would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy the item from a particular company in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty.

 

[cerich]

Regardless of whether the warranties are "full" or "limited", they still fall under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Act does not require manufacturers to provide a warranty, but says that if they do offer one, they must follow the provisions of the law. The provision that the scuba manufacturers seem to be breaking is the "tie-in" sales provision which would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy the item from a particular company in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty.

nope, because they only require you visit a Authorized dealer to get warranty work performed, they don't require you to choose one business, there are many you may choose from.

Good site on all this

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.htm#Magnuson-Moss

 

[Drewski]

I've never really understood WHY a gear manufacturer would NOT provide warranty service on all products they sell, regardless of where the consumer bought it.

Do you REALLY think that equipment manufacturers DON'T know the paper trail that leads to "unauthorized" sales? C'mon now... They know who buys their stuff wholesale and where it goes, regardless of what they might tell us. Every piece of equipment that leaves the factory or gets imported has a serial number and can be "tracked." If an equipment manufacturer really wanted to "shut down" unauthorized sales, they could. They choose not to for obvious economic reasons. The "unauthorized sales policy" they have is just to appease retailers.

So, who pays? The CONSUMER. I'm with Swan about the legal end, the FTC has a HECK of a lot of code out there about honoring warranties. I'm sure something applies.

If I was still running a shop, I'd honor warranty work on "Internet sales" equipment without question. Why? Because getting the person into the shop and creating a "customer relationship" will influence a purchase decision on their NEXT sale.

Just my thoughts...

 

[Lead_carrier]

Regardless of whether the warranties are "full" or "limited", they still fall under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Act does not require manufacturers to provide a warranty, but says that if they do offer one, they must follow the provisions of the law. The provision that the scuba manufacturers seem to be breaking is the "tie-in" sales provision which would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy the item from a particular company in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty.

I'm sure many of us here will cheer you on. I'm also sure the manufacturers have done a bit of research to know what they can get away with and what they can't.

 

[jeffrey-c]

An interesting related question regarding Amazon and LeisurePro. For much of the scuba equipment sold through Amazon.com, their dealer is LP. There is no indication whatsoever through the various purchase screens when buying online through Amazon that the products do not have full manufacturer's warranty. The only time this is apparent is when your equipment arrives and LP's little warranty card is included, but it also doesn't state expressly that the manufacturer's warranty is void.

Has anyone ever pressed this with Amazon? Does their misrepresentation (or lack of representation about the warranty issue) create a legal implication that the manufacturer's warranty is valid?